Ballots to remain uncounted in MI and Stein blocked in Philly. Guest: Election integrity, law expert Paul Lehto says this proves 'only option is to get it right on Election Night'. Also: Trump taps climate denier, fossil-fuel tool for EPA...

Over the weekend, Warren Beatty and his wife, Annette Bening, followed Gov. Schwarzenegger to several rallies. It was an attempt to bring attention to some negative aspects of the Governor's "reform" agenda.

Warren Beatty is troubled that the Governor will not debate anyone on the issues. Beatty says, "As near as I can tell, the broken system that he wants to change is called 'democracy'".

Since Schwarzenegger is not willing to debate anyone on his "reform" agenda, CNN put together a short virtual debate between Warren Beatty and the Governor.

But we found the following phrase, in today's report, had a somewhat familiar ring to it...

Ney said he could not comment on the specifics of the DOJ investigation.

"I believe…that although the government's investigation of Mr. Abramoff has been well-publicized through other sources, it is inappropriate for my office to comment in any detail about an ongoing investigation," he said.

...Hmmm... Now where have we heard that same phrase recently? These guys are getting a lot of use out of those words lately!

Miller told Democracy Now Kerry "told me he now thinks the election was stolen. He says he doesn't believe he is the person that can be out in front because of the sour grapes question. But he said he believes it was stolen. He says he argues with his democratic colleagues on the hill. He said he had a fight with Christopher Dodd because he said there's questions about the voting machines and Dodd was angry."

So I spoke briefly with him just as he arrived, and handed him the book, saying, "You were robbed, Senator." He said, "I know!" with a clear gesture of extreme frustration, and then said that he can't get any of his colleagues on the Hill to face the issue. Said that he had lately had an argument about it with Chris Dodd, who didn't want to hear about it. Kerry tried to tell him about all the problems with the electronic touch-screen machines, but Dodd refused to listen, saying that he had looked into it, and that "there's nothing there." (In bringing the subject up with Dodd, Kerry was not influenced by the GAO report, which he didn't even know about until I mentioned it to him. Indeed, he seemed mightily impressed that the GAO had come out with a strong report.)

That Kerry was unaware of the GAO report [PDF] is no great surprise. We first broke the news of the non-partisan GAO report and it's accompanying bi-partisan joint news release originally here at BRAD BLOG a full two weeks ago. Since then, we've opined about a complete failure to even mention the report at all, by any of the Mainstream Corporate Media (all wire services, all mainstream newspapers, all cable news channels failed to even mention it) both here at BRAD BLOG and late last night at HuffPo (where the item is currently a featured blog and has more comments than any other featured blog item listed on the front page!)

Miller gives more details, in his blog item, on his conversation with Kerry:

I urged him to spearhead a major senatorial investigation into what went down last year, in the spirit of his best work in that chamber, when he led inquiries into Iran/contra and BCCI. He said that, given his position, he doubts that he can be the one to go out front about the issue, because of the "sour grapes" factor. I appreciate his dilemma, but still think that he must embrace the issue of electoral reform, for the country's sake. (I also think that it would be the only way in which he might redeem himself for his deplorable concession just a year ago.)

Now, however, Senator "Never Surrender" completely denies the conversation ever took place. You may remember that he also claimed he would ensure that "every vote was counted" last year. You decide.

Last June, 42% of Americans in a Zogby poll felt that Bush should be impeached if he lied about the War on Iraq while 50% opposed.

Earlier this month, in a new poll by Ipsos, a majority of 50% were in favor of impeachment, while just 44% were opposed.

And today, the latest poll from Zogby asking the same question, says 53% support impeachment of Bush while just 42% oppose.

In the meantime, even while the Mainstream Media were relentlessly discussing impeachment every day, wall-to-wall, about Bill Clinton back in September and August of 1998 (while hardly mentioning it today in relation to Bush) "only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal" according to a study of 16 major polls which asked the question back then (versus the 3 major polls now, 2 of them which had to be funded by American citizens donating to AfterDowningStreet.org.)

UPDATE: Two commenters have taken us to task for what they consider to be a misleading headline on this item, noting that the 53% who "support Bush Impeachment," as the headline states were answering whether or not they would do so "if President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."

Though we did make that point clear in the first sentence of the article, the commenters (one of them an habitual troll here at BRAD BLOG, but we do not discriminate) still had a problem with the headline.

When we posted this article, what we didn't delve into (mostly due to lack of time) was what the sponsors of the poll --- who similarly headlined their article announcing the results as "53% of Americans Support Impeachment," by the way --- also discussed how many Americans feel already that "Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."

From their article:

Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57% say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.

Thus, 53% of Americans support impeachment "if Bush did not tell the truth" and anywhere from 52% to 57% believe he did not tell the truth.

Do the math. We stand by the original headline. (And still hope Bush gets a blowjob so impeachment proceedings may begin.)

"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: Not only would most voters not know about an initiative to protect Coushatta gambling revenues, but religious "wackos" could be tricked into supporting gambling at the Coushatta casino even as they thought they were opposing it.

Do you people get it yet? You're the "wackos" according to your own people.

Incidentally, from the same poll (and especially for all those wingnut radio hosts who have told me that they don't talk TreasonGate because "Americans don't care about the issue"), here's the numbers of those who found the following scandals to be of either "Great Importance" or "Some Importance" and, parenthetically, the dates on which the polls were taken:

Clearly, it was the wrong moment to declare war on the blogosphere. Barely a week before the New York Times went public with its baffling account of ex-star reporter Judith Miller's unholy entanglement with vice-presidential aide "Scooter" Libby, the paper's executive editor, Bill Keller, proclaimed that Weblogs do nothing more than "recycle and chew on the news." Pride, as ever, goeth before the fall.

Caught flat-footed on the CIA-leak story, the Times saw its lunch handed to it by the new blogging elite. Leading the charge were the upstart gumshoes of RawStory.com, the pundits of the Huffington Post and a rear guard of Internet editorialists, all taking the Gray Lady to task for failing to practice the very "journalism of verification" that Keller claimed set the Times apart.

Bloggers now routinely break the major stories of the day. And their reports are getting sucked into the twenty-four-hour news cycle.

President Bush last week appointed nine campaign contributors, including three longtime fund-raisers, to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a 16-member panel of individuals from the private sector who advise the president on the quality and effectiveness of U.S. intelligence efforts.

Libby pleaded 'not guilty' at his arraignment earlier this morning. It looks like Cheney will have to testify. While he might be allowed to submit pre-recorded video testimony, Chris Matthews said "It looks like he's going to have to sit in the chair." This White House will strongly oppose the idea of Cheney testifying under oath in open court.

The following video clip has the statement of Libby's lawyer as they left court. Chris Matthews analyzes the risk for Cheney, Rove and The White House.

Newsweek and The Washington Post are reporting an uncertain future for Karl Rove. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek postulates that Rove could lose his security clearance:

According to last week's indictment of Scooter Libby, a person identified as “Official A” held conversations with reporters about Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative, information that was classified. News accounts subsequently confirmed that that official was Rove. Under Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton in 1995, such a disclosure is grounds for, at a minimum, losing access to classified information.

The Washington Post has learned that some White House aids and top Republicans are expressing doubts about Karl Rove's future:

If Rove stays, which colleagues say remains his intention, he may at a minimum have to issue a formal apology for misleading colleagues and the public about his role in conversations that led to the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to senior Republican sources familiar with White House deliberations.

...
Fitzgerald is considering charging Rove with making false statements in the course of the 22-month probe, and sources close to Rove --- who holds the titles of senior adviser and White House deputy chief of staff --- said they expect to know within weeks whether the most powerful aide in the White House will be accused of a crime.

But some top Republicans said yesterday that Rove's problems may not end there. Bush's top advisers are considering whether it is tenable for Rove to remain on the staff, given that Fitzgerald has already documented something that Rove and White House official spokesmen once emphatically denied --- that he played a central role in discussions with journalists about Plame's role at the CIA and her marriage to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Iraq war.

Once again, blogger/White House correspondent, Eric Brewer, holds feet to fire. Read the below, from his questions at today's WH Press Gaggle, and ask yourself if it sounds like McClellan is dodging anything. Anything at all...

Q After his meeting with the President on Monday, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was asked whether the Italian government had provided the United States with intelligence on alleged Iraqi purchases of uranium ore from Niger. Berlusconi replied, “Bush, himself, confirmed to me that the U.S.A. did not have any information from Italian agencies.” Does the White House stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: Stand by what — say the statement again.

Q Berlusconi replied — he replied in Italian, this is a translation, “Bush, himself, confirmed to me that the U.S.A. did not have any information from Italian agencies.”

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed that question yesterday. I responded to that. You've got to go back and look at exactly what I said.

Q So your answer is, “yes”?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? I addressed that question yesterday. I responded to it.

Q So the answer is, “yes”?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, if you're talking about — because there have been some Italian reports about a meeting that took place here at the White House, and I pointed out yesterday that there were no documents provided relating to Niger and uranium at that meeting, much less –

Q Not just –

MR. McCLELLAN: — much less was it even discussed.

Q — no, not just at the meeting –

MR. McCLELLAN: And in terms of going back to the issue of Niger and uranium, I mean, we briefed on that and we talked about the basis for the statement in the remarks. And it was based on the National Intelligence Estimates and the British intelligence.

Brewer has much more, including background on the forged Iraq/Niger documents hoax (which is quickly where this thing may well be going) and his questioning about it today as well to National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley.

President Jimmy Carter appeared on the NBC's Today Show this morning to promote his new book Our Endangered Values.

President Carter spoke about several of the many scandals that the Republicans and Bush White House are now facing. In particular, Carter holds strong views against torture, the outing of Valerie Plame and the misused intelligence and lies prior to the invasion of Iraq.